Wei_Dai comments on The Level Above Mine - Less Wrong

42 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 September 2008 09:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (387)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 23 January 2013 07:40:11AM *  1 point [-]

Resolutions of simple confusions usually look pretty obvious in retrospect.

Can you give some more examples of this, besides "free will"? (I don't understand where your intuitions comes from that certain problems will turn out to have solutions that are obvious in retrospect, and that such feelings of obviousness are trustworthy. Maybe it would help me see your perspective if I got some more past examples.)

Comment author: MugaSofer 23 January 2013 01:26:55PM 0 points [-]

A tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Comment author: Peterdjones 23 January 2013 06:10:22PM 0 points [-]

I don't class that as a problem that is discussed by professional philosophers. It's more of a toy question that introduces the nature of phil. problems -- and the importance of asking "it depends on what you mean..." -- to laypeople.

Comment author: MugaSofer 24 January 2013 11:45:55AM 0 points [-]

I agree, but that's not what I was aiming for. It's an example of obviousness after the fact, not philosophers being wrong/indecisive.

Comment author: Peterdjones 24 January 2013 01:25:29PM 0 points [-]

It's not an example that lends much credence to the idea that all problems can be solved that way, even apart from the generalisation-from-one-example issue.

Comment author: MugaSofer 24 January 2013 02:08:05PM -1 points [-]

I'm not claiming it proves anything, and I'm not taking sides in this discussion. Someone asked for an example of something - something which varies from person to person depending on whether they've dissolved the relevant confusions - and I provided what I thought was the best example. It is not intended to prove anyone's point; arguments are not soldiers.

Comment author: Peterdjones 25 January 2013 11:07:02AM 0 points [-]

The counterargument to "arguments are not soldiers" is "a point should have a point".

Comment author: MugaSofer 25 January 2013 11:38:02AM *  -1 points [-]

It wasn't an argument at all. That you chose to interpret it as an enemy soldier is your mistake, not mine. It's not a weak soldier, it's a ... medic or something.

Comment author: Peterdjones 23 January 2013 06:14:32PM *  0 points [-]